Trump and Barr Speak At National Catholic Prayer Breakfast

Yesterday both President Trump (in a pre-recorded address-- full text) and Attorney General William Barr spoke at the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast, held online this year (video of entire breakfast). In his remarks, President Trump said in part:

Today I am announcing that I will be signing the Born Alive Executive Order to ensure that all precious babies born alive, no matter their circumstances, receive the medical care that they deserve. This is our sacrosanct moral duty. We are also increasing federal funding for the neonatal research to ensure that every child has the very best chance to thrive and to grow.

Attorney General Barr was presented the Christifideles Laici Award. In his acceptance speech (full text), he said in part:

That crucial link between religion and liberty, so well understood at the Founding, is all too often forgotten today.  In American public discourse, perhaps no concept is more misunderstood than the notion of “separation of church and state.”  Militant secularists have long seized on that slogan as a facile justification for attempting to drive religion from the public square and to exclude religious people from bringing a religious perspective to bear on conversations about the common good.

Yet as events like this one remind us, separation of church and state does not mean, and never did mean, separation of religion and civics... 

Unfortunately, in the last half century, that foundation of our free society has increasingly been under siege.  Traditional morality has eroded, and secularists have often succeeded not only in eliminating religion from schools and the public square, but in replacing it with new orthodoxies that are actively hostile to religion.  The consequences of this hollowing out of religion have been predictably dire....

Wherever we are in life, it is never too late to work in the Lord’s vineyard.  Our spiritual renewal, and the renewal of our national character, depend on it.

Irish Court Focuses On Importance of Witness Oath

 N.D. (Albania) v. International Protection Appeals Tribunal, (High Ct. Ireland, Sept. 22, 2020), was a suit brought by an Albanian woman who is challenging her order of deportation from Ireland. The suit seeks review of a decision of Ireland's International Protection Appeals Tribunal. The High Court dismissed the challenge on procedural grounds, while, however, also dealing with petitioners' claim that the Appels Tribunal decision was invalid because no oath was administered to her in the proceeding. The court said in part:

[W]hile the ongoing secularisation of society makes oaths, with their emphasis on religious beliefs, look like a pre-Enlightenment anachronism and an embarrassment, the unfortunate reality is that the oath still has a powerful role in bringing out the truth. There are people who are relatively untroubled about the theoretical civil and criminal consequences of lies to a court or tribunal, but who nonetheless hesitate if asked to call down their deity as a witness to such lies. The rational, bureaucratic, mind fails to appreciate that merely stiffening the criminal penalties for perjury has no effect whatever on that viewpoint.

Irish Legal News Reports on the decision.

Church Challenges D.C.'s COVID-19 Orders

The first suit by a church challenging the District of Columbia's COVID-19 Orders was filed last week by an 850-member evangelical congregation.  The D.C. Orders limit the number of persons who can gather for religious services. The complaint (full text) in Capitol Hill Baptist Church v. Bowser, (D DC, filed 9/22/2020), alleges in part:

For nearly 2,000 years, Christians have gathered each Sunday throughout the year in observance of Christ’s resurrection from the dead on the first day of the week, and the physical gathering of the church is central to that celebration. Indeed, the Greek word translated as “church” in our English versions of the Christian scriptures is “ekklesia,” which literally means “assembly.”... 

As with other communities of Christian faith around the country, CHBC believes that a central part of following Christ is worshipping together in the same physical space.

The suit alleges violations of the 1st Amendment, the 5th Amendment and RFRA. Washington Post reports on the lawsuit.

8th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments On Qualified Immunity In Suit By Christian Student Group

 The U.S. 8sth Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday heard oral arguments in Business Leaders in Christ v. University of Iowa. (Audio of full oral arguments.) In the case, an Iowa federal district court granted a permanent injunction to a Christian student group that was denied Registered Student Organization status. The denial was based on the University's Human Rights Policy that prohibits discrimination, among other things, on the basis of sexual orientation. The court concluded that this violated plaintiff's free expression rights. However the court held that individual defendants in the case had qualified immunity in an action for damages against them because "the Court cannot say the constitutional issues were established 'beyond debate.'." (See prior related posting.)

Israel's High Court Says Disciplinary Panel Required For Municipal Rabbi's Comments

 A 3-judge panel of Israel's High Court of Justice ruled yesterday that the country's Chief Rabbinate must convene a disciplinary panel to try Safed's Chief Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu. Jerusalem Post and Haaretz report on the decision. At issue are a number of statements by Eliyahu critical of Arabs and of the LGBTQ community. Also at issue are political statements by Eliyahu. The judges each wrote about the balance between free speech and limits on what a state-funded municipal rabbi may say. Now, according to Jerusalem Post:

Justice Minister Avi Nissenkorn of the Blue and White Party now needs to request that Chief Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef form a disciplinary panel for Eliyahu.

Yosef needs to form that panel, consisting of a rabbinical court judge or emeritus judge and two municipal chief rabbis, within 30 days. The panel can record a note in Eliyahu’s file, issue him with a warning, reprimand him or dismiss him from his position.

Religion, Law and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg-- A Tribute

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's body will lie in repose at the Supreme Court on Wednesday and Thursday of this week (Supreme Court press release), and then will lie in state on Friday at the U.S. Capitol. (NBC News). The Supreme Court courtroom has been draped in black in accordance with Supreme Court custom. According to the Supreme Court's press release announcing her death, a private burial service will take place at Arlington National Cemetery. Here are the statements of other Supreme Court justices on Justice Ginsburg's death.  Justice Breyer began his statement: "I heard of Ruth’s death while I was reciting the Mourner’s Kaddish at the Rosh Hashanah service." Interesting insights into Justice Ginsburg's life are found in an RNS article titled Ruth Bader Ginsburg Was Shaped by Her Minority Faith.

During her 27 years on the Court, Justice Ginsburg authored a number of opinions on church-state and religious liberty issues, including:

• Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania, 591 U.S. ___ (2020)- (dissenting opinion).
• Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, 591 U.S. ___ (2020)- (dissenting opinion).
• American Legion v. American Humanist Association, 588 U.S. ___ (2019)- (dissenting opinion).
• Fort Bend County v. Davis, 587 U.S. ___ (2019)- (opinion of the Court).
• Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. __ (2018)- (dissenting opinion).
• Holt v. Hobbs, 574 U.S. 352 (2015)- (concurring opinion).
• Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682 (2014)- (dissenting opinion).
• Christian Legal Soc. Chapter of Univ. of Cal., Hastings College of Law v. Martinez, 561 U.S. 661 (2010)- (opinion of the Court).
• Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 (2005)- (opinion of the Court).
• Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203 (1997)- (dissenting opinion).
• Capitol Square Review and Advisory Bd. v. Pinette, 515 U.S. 753 (1995)- (dissenting opinion).

An interesting liturgical tribute to Justice Ginsburg was developed by Rabbi Marc Katz and Cantor Meredith Greenberg of Temple Ner Tamid, Bloomfield, NJ.

Recent Articles of Interest

 From SSRN:

• Michael Conklin, Andrew Koppelman's Proposal: A Lose-Lose Solution for Religious Liberty and Gay Rights (August 2020).
• Nelson Tebbe & Micah Schwartzman, Re-upping Appeasement: Religious Freedom and Judicial Politics in the 2019 Term, Virginia Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper No. 2020-68 (2020)).
• Netta Barak Corren, Taking Conflicting Rights Seriously,  (Villanova Law Review, Vol. 65, No. 2, 2020).
• John Ip, The Travel Ban, Judicial Deference, and the Legacy of Korematsu, ((2020) 63 Howard Law Journal 153).
• Leonore Carpenter & Ellie Margolis, One Sequin at a Time: Lessons on State Constitutions and Incremental Change from the Campaign for Marriage Equality, (75 N.Y.U. Ann. Surv. Am. L. 255 (2020)).
• Michael J. Higdon, (In)Formal Marriage Equality, (July 19, 2020).
• Cynthia Conti-Cook, Surveying the Digital Abortion Diary: A Preview of How Anti-Abortion Prosecutors Will Weaponize Commonly-Used Digital Devices As Criminal Evidence Against Pregnant People and Abortion Providers in a Post-Roe America, (University of Baltimore Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Alyssa Bryant & Ezra Young, Transgender Politics: The Civil Rights of Transgender Persons, (Transgender and Gender Diverse Persons: A Handbook for Service Providers, Educators, and Families (Routledge 2019)).
• Ezra Young, Demarginalizing Trans Rights, (Deploying Intersectionality: Legal, Intellectual, and Activist Interventions (Kimberlé Crenshaw et al. eds., New Press 2021, Forthcoming).
• Eza Young, What the Supreme Court Could Have Heard in R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC and Aimee  Stephens,  (California Law Review Online, 2020).

From SSRN (Non-U.S. Law):

• Ronli Sifris, Tania Penovic & Caroline Henckels, Advancing Reproductive Rights through Legal Reform: The Example of Abortion Clinic Safe Access Zones, (University of New South Wales Law Journal, Vol. 43, No. 3, 2020).
• Kriti Aeron, Triple Talaq – a Battle towards Gender Justice with Reference to Shayara Bano, (March 5, 2019).
• Taiyba Khan, The Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019: A Religion Based Pathway to Indian Citizenship, (April 21, 2020).
• Peter Ottuh & Akpotor Eboh, A Philosophical Assessment of Tithing as a Tool for Tax Avoidance and Evasion in Nigeria, (August 5, 2020).
• Patrick Quirk, Protecting Religious Freedom and Conscience: What Australia Might Learn from Germany, (Fordham International Law Journal, Vol. 43, No. 163, 2019).
• Harsh Mahaseth, The Non-enforcement of Singapore’s Anti-gay Law Is Not a Good ‘Compromise’, (Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 55, Issue No. 13, 28 Mar, 2020).

From elsewhere:

• Journal of Law & Religion, Vol. 35, Issue 2 (Aug. 2020).

EEOC Sues Over Failure To Accommodate Seventh Day Adventist

The EEOC announced this week that it has filed a Title VII lawsuit against Texas-based Frito-Lay, Inc. for failing to accommodate the religious needs of a Seventh Day Adventist employee working in Florida. The Commission explained:

[A] West Palm Beach Frito-Lay warehouse employee applied for and received a promotion to route sales representative. The employee completed approximately five weeks of training without having to train on Saturdays. However, despite learning he could not work on Saturdays be­cause of his Seventh-day Adventist religious beliefs, Frito-Lay sched­uled him to train on Saturdays and terminated him after he failed to report to training on two consecutive Saturdays.

President Issues Rosh Hashanah Message

 Today the White House released a Presidential Message on Rosh Hashanah, 2020, which begins this evening. It reads in part:

The First Lady and I wish our Jewish brothers and sisters Shana Tova and hope the millions observing this sacred day in America and around the world have a blessed start to the High Holy Days....

This year’s High Holy Days come with a sense of optimism for the people of Israel, as my Administration continues to make great strides in securing a more stable, prosperous, and peaceful Middle East region...

Ohio Law Bans COVID Orders That Close Houses of Worship

Ohio Governor Mike DeWine yesterday signed into law HB272 (full text) which prohibits any public official from issuing an order to close all places of worship in the state or in a geographic region of the state. The bill responds to actions in other states closing churches to prevent the spread of COVID-19.  AP reports on the Governor's action.

EEOC Sues Over Health Care Company's Refusal To Accommodate Modest Dress Beliefs

The EEOC announced that it filed a religious discrimination suit Wednesday in a Texas federal district court against Wellpath, LLC, a provider of health care in correctional facilities. Describing the suit, the EEOC said in part:

[A] nurse who is a practicing Apostolic Pentecostal Christian was hired by Wellpath to work in the GEO Central Texas Correctional Facility.... Before reporting to work, the nurse told a Wellpath human resources employee that her religious beliefs require her to dress modestly and to wear a scrub skirt instead of scrub pants while at work. In response, Wellpath denied the request for her religion-based accommodation and rescinded the nurse’s job offer.

Consent Decree Allows Construction of Chabad House

 A consent decree was entered this week in United States v. Borough of  Woodcliff Lake, (D NJ, Sept. 15, 2020), ordering the Borough to grant zoning variances that will permit construction of a Chabad synagogue. The decree, citing RLUIPA, orders zoning approvals in accordance with a site plan approved in the settlement of a parallel private action. The consent decree also contains provisions to assure future compliance with RLUIPA.  NJ.com reports on the consent decree. [Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

California Christian School Must Abide By COVID-19 Restrictions

 In County of Fresno v. Immanuel Schools, (CA Super. Ct., Sept. 15, 2020), a California state trial court judge issued a preliminary injunction ordering a 600-student Christian school near Fresno, CA to cease holding in-person classes as required by state and local COVID-19 orders. The court said in part:

United States Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts has observed in a recent consequential concurring opinion that “[t]he precise question of when restrictions on particular’social activities should be lifted during the pandemic is a dynamic and fact-intensive matter subject to reasonable disagreement. Our Constitution principally entrusts ‘[t]he safety and the health of the people’ to the politically accountable officials of the States ‘to guard and protect.’ When those officials ‘undertake[] to act in areas fraught with medical and scientific uncertainties,’ their latitude ’must be especially broad.’” (South Bay United Pentacostal Church V. Newsom (2020)....

Courthouse News Service reports on the decision. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Mask-In-School Requirement Challenged On Free Exercise Grounds

Suit was filed last week in an Ohio state trial court challenging as too narrow the religious exemption from Ohio's COVID-19 mask requirement in schools. The complaint (full text) in Miller v. Himes, (Putnam Cty. Com Pl., filed Sept. __, 2020), contends that the exemption for students "when an established sincerely held religious requirement exists which does not permit a facial covering" violates their free exercise rights. A school district denied an exemption to one of the plaintiffs even though she had a sincerely held religious belief  opposing masks. The district took the position that a belief is different from a religious requirement.  The suit also challenges the school mask requirement on various other grounds, including compelled speech and parental rights claims. Cincinnati Enquirer reports on the lawsuit.

EEOC Sues On Behalf of Employees Who Refuse To Wear Company Aprons That Contain Rainbow Emblem

The EEOC announced yesterday that it has filed suit against a Conway, Arkansas Kroger store charging that it violated Title VII when it disciplined and then discharged two women employees who refused to wear Kroger aprons that display a rainbow-colored heart emblem.  The women believe that the apron endorses LGBTQ values and that wearing it violates their religious beliefs. Kroger refused the women's offers to wear other aprons or to cover the emblem.

Consent Decree Ends Religious Practices In Tennessee School District

Earlier this week, a Tennessee federal district court issued a consent decree in Butler v. Smith County Board of Education, (MD TN, Sept. 14, 2020), enjoining various religious practices in the Smith County schools. The Consent Decree and Order provides in part:

Complaint alleged that the Board has a custom, policy, and practice of violating the Establishment Clause by, among other actions, incorporating official prayer into school events; proselytizing students; and subjecting students to religious iconography via displays in classrooms, hallways, and other locations....

School Officials are enjoined from promoting, advancing, endorsing, participating in, or causing Prayers during or in conjunction with School Events for any school within the School District....

School Officials are enjoined from planning, organizing, financing, promoting, or otherwise sponsoring in whole or in part a Religious Service....

Defendants are enjoined from permitting School Officials at any school within the School District to promote their personal religious beliefs to students in class or during or in conjunction with a School Event....

School Officials are enjoined from taking retaliatory action against Plaintiffs or any member of their family for bringing this lawsuit or otherwise objecting to unconstitutional practices.

WZTV reports on the case.

DoD Issues Revised Policy On Religious Liberty In Military Services

On Sept. 1, the Department of Defense issued a revised version of DoD Instruction 1300.17, Religious Liberty in the Military Services. The revised Instruction begins by setting out the purpose of the document:

• Establishes DoD policy in furtherance of the Free Exercise Clause ... recognizing that Service members have the right to observe the tenets of their religion, or to observe no religion at all.

• Establishes policy, assigns responsibilities, and provides procedures for the accommodation of religious practices of Service members.

• Establishes DoD policy on the accommodation of individual expressions of sincerely held beliefs (conscience, moral principles, or religious beliefs), which do not have an adverse impact on military readiness, unit cohesion, good order and discipline, or health and safety.

• Establishes DoD policy providing that an expression of sincerely held beliefs (conscience, moral principles, or religious beliefs) may not, in so far as practicable, be used as the basis of any adverse personnel action, discrimination, or denial of promotion, schooling, training, or assignment.

• Implements requirements in ... “The Religious Freedom Restoration Act” ... and other laws applicable to the accommodation of religious practices for DoD to provide, in accordance with the RFRA, that DoD Components will normally accommodate practices of a Service member based on a sincerely held religious belief.

• Requires DoD Components to oversee the development and provision of education and training on the policies and procedures pertaining to the accommodation of religious practices of Service members to commanders, judge advocates, chaplains, recruiters, and other personnel....

The new Instruction replaces a version adopted in 2014. (See prior posting.)

Report Contends UAE-Bahrain-Israel Deal Could Change Status Quo On Temple Mount

Relying on a Report from the NGO Terrestrial Jerusalem, Al Jazeeera says that a clause in the UAE-Bahrain normalization agreements with Israel could lead to a change in status of the Temple Mount/ Al-Aqsa compound. Under the current status quo arrangements, only Muslims can pray on the Temple Mount/ Al-Aqsa compound.  President Trump's Middle East Peace Plan called for the Temple Mount to be open to worshipers of all faiths. However a later clarification by U.S. Ambassador to Israel David Friedman  said: "The status quo, in the manner that it is observed today, will continue absent an agreement to the contrary." Recent statements by the UAE and Bahrain are now being seen as signaling a breach of the status quo arrangement.

Donald Trump's Peace Plan carefully referred to the Temple Mount as "Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif."  The August 13 Joint Statement by the UAE, Israel and the United States as well as the September 11 Joint Statement by Bahrain, Israel and the U.S. include the following statement which refers only to Al Aqsa Mosque:

As set forth in the Vision for Peace, all Muslims who come in peace may visit and pray at the Al Aqsa Mosque, and Jerusalem’s other holy sites should remain open for peaceful worshippers of all faiths.

According to the Terrestrial Jerusalem Report:

Israel defines Al Aqsa as the structure of the mosque, as does the wording of the Statement, whereas Muslims define Al Aqsa as the entire esplanade of Haram al Sharif/the Temple Mount. Consequently, according to Israel (and apparently to the United States), anything on the Mount that is not the structure of the mosque is defined as "one of Jerusalem's other holy sites", and open to prayer by all – including Jews. Accordingly, Jews may now be permitted to pray on the Temple Mount, just not in the mosque....

Both the Israeli Prime Minister and the US negotiating team fully understand the significance of every word and every nuance relating to Jerusalem in general, and to the Temple Mount/Haram Al Sharif in particular. Consequently, this choice of terminology is neither random nor a misstep, and cannot seen as anything but an intentional, albeit surreptitious attempt to leave the door wide open to Jewish prayer on the Temple Mount, thereby radically changing the status quo.

Recent Articles of Interest

 From SSRN:

• Stephanie H. Barclay & Michalyn Steele, Rethinking Protections for Indigenous Sacred Sites, (134 Harvard Law Review (2021 Forthcoming)).
• Frederick Mark Gedicks, Christian Dignity and the Overlapping Consensus, (Brigham Young University Law Review, Forthcoming).
• George P. Smith, God, Caesar, and Darwin: Parameters and Perimeters of The Town Hall, (2020).
• James May & Erin Daly, Why Dignity Rights Matter, (19 European Human Rights L. Rev. 129 (2019)).
• Samuel D. Brunson, Addressing Hate: Georgia, the IRS, and the Ku Klux Klan, (July 31, 2020).
• Tanner Bean & Robin Fretwell Wilson, The Administrative State as a New Front in the Culture War: Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania, (2019-2020 Cato Supreme Court Review (2020)).
• Edana Richardson, The UAE and Responsible Finance – Can Responsible Finance Ṣukūk Help the UAE in Fulfilling Its Sustainability Ambitions?, (Arab Law Quarterly (2021), Forthcoming).
• Sabbir Ahmad Sibli, Cleanliness in Islam: Exploring Through COVID- 19 Pandemic Precautions and Concerns (September 1, 2020).

From SmartCILP:

• Gene Schaerr & Michael Worley, The "Third Party Harm Rule": Law Or Wishful Thinking?, 17 Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy 629-652 (2019).
• Virginia L. Brown, The "Principal Purpose" Driven Life: How Hospitals Should Apply ERISA's Church Plan Exemption after Advocate v. Stapleton, 22 Journal of Health Care Law & Policy 223-244 (2019).

EU Court of Justice Advocate General Says Ban On Ritual Slaughter Is Invalid

The Court of Justice of the European Union last week released an Advocate General's opinion concluding that a decree of Belgium's Flemish region effectively banning kosher and Halal slaughter violates European Union law.  In Centraal Israëlitisch Consistorie van België and Others, (Sept. 10, 2020), Belgium's Constitutional Court requested a preliminary ruling on whether the Flemish region can require stunning of animals prior to slaughter.  The Advocate General concluded that the questions referred to the Court of Justice be answered as follows:

Point (c) of the first subparagraph of Article  26(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No  1099/2009 of 24 September 2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing, read together with Article 4(1) and 4(4) thereof, and having regard to Article 10 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 13 TFEU, must be interpreted as meaning that Member States are not permitted to adopt rules which provide, on the one hand, for a prohibition of the slaughter of animals without stunning that also applies to the slaughter carried out in the context of a religious rite and, on the other hand, for an alternative stunning procedure for the slaughter carried out in the context of a religious rite, based on reversible stunning and on condition that the stunning should not result in the death of the animal.

It had been argued that it should be at least permitted to require stunning that is reversible just prior to slaughter.  The Advocate General rejected this claim, saying in part:

There has also been some debate before the Court as to whether the prior reversible stunning which does not lead to the death of an animal or post-cut stunning of vertebrates satisfies the particular methods of slaughter prescribed by religious rites of both the Muslim and Jewish faiths. In that regard, it would seem that there are divergent views on the matter within both faiths. As I pointed out in my Opinion in Case C-243/19 A. v. Veselibas Ministrija, a secular court cannot choose in relation to the matters of religious orthodoxy:

[Thanks to Law & Religion UK for the lead.]